Drinking patterns and attitudes for young people in inner-urban Melbourne and outer-urban
growth areas: differences and similarities
Running title: Drinking in inner- Melbourne and outer-urban growth areas
Abstract
Despite new patterns of socio-spatial polarisation, cities are generally treated as homogenous places
in analyses of alcohol consumption. To inform local alcohol policy we compared alcohol measures
for young people in inner-urban Melbourne and outer-urban growth areas using data from the 2009
Victorian Youth Alcohol and Drug Survey. Young people in inner-Melbourne reported more liberal
attitudes to drinking than their peers in growth areas. Regular strength beer was more usually
consumed in inner-Melbourne against pre-mixed spirits in growth areas, and drinking at licensed
venues was more usual in inner-Melbourne. Respondents below the legal drinking age of 18 in innerMelbourne were more likely to have purchased alcohol and to have consumed alcohol in a licensed
premise during the past year. As findings were only slightly altered by adjusting for age, sex and
socio-economic status, it is likely that these differences relate to local drinking cultures, alcohol
outlet density and the range of leisure activities available for young adults. Measures to reduce
heavy episodic drinking through restricting alcohol availability are relevant to both inner- and
growth area settings. Enforcement of provisions banning alcohol sales to minors is particularly
indicated in inner-Melbourne. Growth area responses might focus on cautious outlet density
planning.
Key words: Alcohol, young people, peri-urban, growth area, outer-urban, inner-city, Melbourne
1
Introduction
Local governments in most Australian jurisdictions are now required under legislation to develop
municipal public health plans. In Victoria this entails a requirement to address ‘special factors
affecting the health of people within the municipal district’ (Department of Health, 2007). Reducing
alcohol-related harms is increasing recognised as a key public health concern for local governments,
however local governments have expressed concern that they lack the evidence required to develop
effective alcohol policy responses (National Local Government Drug and Alcohol Advisory
Committee, 2008). In this paper we identify similarities and differences in alcohol consumption
patterns and attitudes towards drinking and drunkenness for young people in two geographically
distinct parts of Melbourne; inner-urban Melbourne and outer-urban Melbourne growth areas, and
outline how these findings can support alcohol policy development that is sensitive to differences
between urban settings.
The past few decades have seen new patterns of spatial differentiation in Australian cities (Forster,
2006, O'Connor and Rapson, 2003, Randolph and Holloway, 2005, Baum and Gleeson, 2010). InnerMelbourne, for example, has gentrified, with escalating housing prices and greater social
stratification (Randolph and Holloway, 2005, Forster, 2006). An energetic night time economy has
emerged in inner-city entertainment precincts. Meanwhile, new urban frontiers have opened up on
the perimeters of the city, largely driven by the need for cheap residential land. Outer-urban
developments are referred to as ‘peri-urban’, ‘growth corridor’ and ‘interface areas’, each
demarcating different administrative or functional spaces (Adell, 1999). These places are home to
high proportions of young people but offer relatively little infrastructure and few recreation options
(Robson, 2009, Jackson and McDonald, 2005, Buxton and Scheurer, 2007).
2
Alongside changing patterns of urbanisation, concern has emerged in recent decades about young
people’s drinking patterns, with ‘alcohol-fuelled violence’ and ‘binge drinking’ attracting media,
academic and policy attention in Australia (Roche et al., 2008, Livingston, 2008b). Researchers have
pointed to the development of globalised youth drinking cultures where attaining intoxication from
alcohol and other drug use has become central to young people’s night time leisure activities
(Measham, 2004, Measham and Brain, 2005, Parker, 2007). The 2009 Victorian Youth Alcohol and
Drug Survey (VYADS) found that two-fifths (42%) of participants engaged in high-level drinking,
defined as 20 or more standard drinks on at least one day in the past year, representing a 5%
increase since 2004 and a 16% increase since 2002 (Social Research Centre, 2010).
In Victoria, changes to liquor licensing policy since the late 1980s have resulted in greatly expanded
numbers of liquor licenses alongside longer outlet opening hours (Livingston, 2008b). It is apparent
that increasing alcohol outlet density is associated with greater alcohol-related harm including
assault (Livingston, 2008a), domestic violence (Livingston, 2011) and drinking at a level that is likely
to be harmful to one’s health (Kavanagh et al., 2011). Adding new bottle shops (packaged liquor
outlets) is associated with greater increases in these harms than adding new licensed restaurants
and pubs (Livingston, 2008a, Livingston, 2011). It also seems that adding additional packaged liquor
outlets to suburban areas has more deleterious effects than adding them to inner-city areas
(Livingston, 2008a). Little is known specifically about how outlet density impacts on either drinking
patterns or related harms in outer-suburban growth areas.
Epidemiological studies point to distinct drinking patterns for people living in urban, rural, regional
or remote areas; however whether differences in drinking patterns exist within urban areas is rarely
considered. Miller et al. (2010), for example, reviewed 18 studies of alcohol consumption prevalence
and associated harms and found a higher rate of both in rural and remote areas than in urban areas.
This study did not investigate differences in drinking patterns between inner- and outer-urban areas.
3
Two studies conducted in Melbourne; Lindsay (2006) and NLT Consulting (2006) suggest that
drinking behaviours vary across urban settings. However, the nature and extent of these differences
is poorly understood and hence is the subject of this paper. NLT Consulting (2006) found that young
people in ‘interface’ areas of Melbourne (those located between inner-urban and rural
municipalities) demonstrate lower educational achievement and higher prevalence of risk
behaviours than in metropolitan Melbourne overall . Risk behaviours measured were substance use
in the past 30 days (including alcohol use), mental health disorders and antisocial behaviour. A
qualitative study conducted in Melbourne found that young people from outer suburbs frequently
travelled into inner-city venues to drink and preferred larger commercial venues where discounted
‘on-premises’ drinks were heavily promoted (Lindsay, 2006).
Method
Data used in this study were drawn from the most recent VYADS, collected between September and
November 2009 and involving a sample of 5001 young people. VYADS is a representative study that
measures consumption patterns and attitudes towards alcohol and drug use for 16 to 24 year old
urban, regional and rural Victorians using a computer assisted telephone interviewing survey,
accessing respondents by landline numbers in private dwellings. The response rate of the study was
71%. Survey data were post-weighted to the Victorian population aged 16 to 24 years using
Australian Bureau of Statistics data for age, gender and geographical location. The survey design is
described in detail elsewhere (Social Research Centre, 2010). Information on liquor outlet density
reported in Table 1 pertains to 2011 and was calculated from data provided by the Victorian
Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation.
In a dynamic urban landscape the task of defining urban zones is complex. On the advice of research
partners including two local governments and a local government peak body) in the ARC linkage
project funding this research, we used the Victorian government’s designated growth areas to
4
identify areas on the expanding fringe of Melbourne which are experiencing particularly rapid
growth and change, and which provided a more geographically distinct comparison with innerMelbourne than the more inclusive interface suburbs. Specified suburbs within the local
government areas (LGAs) of Casey, Cardinia, Melton, Whittlesea and Wyndham and Mitchell were
designated as growth areas at August 2012 (Growth Areas Authority, 2012). Inner-Melbourne was
defined as the area of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan (Inner Melbourne Action Plan, 2010)
comprising Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonington (west of Kooyong Rd) and Yarra.. Study areas are
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: inner-urban Melbourne and outer-urban growth areas
Stud y regions
Growth area
Inner Melbourne
We examined variables concerning demographics, attitudes to alcohol, alcohol consumption
frequency and levels, where alcohol is obtained and consumed, and alcohol product choice.
5
Respondents were assigned a region based on their self-reported postcode. Where a portion of a
postcode lay across the boundary of an area of interest, the entire postcode was included. Stata
Version 12 was used for analysis (StataCorp, 2010). All reported frequencies are unweighted,
whereas percentages, modelled data and accompanying statistics use survey-based design weights.
Results are rounded to one decimal place.
Tables 2 through 5 present two sets of results comparing growth areas of Melbourne to Inner
Melbourne. For comparative purposes the data presented in the tables are straightforward
percentages (or means), with the associated Wald test statistics. Chi-square test statistics are
presented for specific bivariate age group comparison. The unadjusted statistics are based on
bivariate analysis, whereas the adjusted statistics are the estimated means and percentages (and pvalues) after accounting for the covariates age, gender, and Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas
(SEIFA) classification (all being held at the observed value within the sample). In our adjusted
analyses we used average marginal effects (Baum, 2006) to compare the two urban areas. This
approach assesses the difference between the two groups with all other covariates treated as equal.
Thus, a significant effect in these adjusted models implies differences in behaviour between the two
areas even accounting for variations in age, gender and SEIFA.
Covariates were selected as characteristic of individuals that are likely to impact on drinking patterns
and attitudes (Social Research Centre, 2010). We did not adjust results for alcohol outlet density as
the strong tendency for young people from fringe areas to drink in inner city entertainment
precincts (Lindsay, 2006) included in our ‘inner-urban’ setting confounds the effects of density on
drinking patterns in ways that are not well understood.
Bivariate and adjusted results reported below are only marginally different. In the results and
discussion sections below we focus on the unadjusted bivariate results. This is because our purpose
here is to present an accurate descriptive assessment of patterns and trends that are relevant to
6
designing place-based alcohol service and policy responses, rather than to explore whether
differences in drinking patters are a function of demographic variation.
Results
Descriptive characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1. The gender breakdown in both
areas was approximately equal and there was no statistically significant difference in the percentage
of respondents speaking English at home or in disposable income available. Respondents in growth
areas were slightly, and statistically significantly, younger and more likely to report living with their
family. Just over 70% of growth area respondents lived in localities in the lower two bands of the
SEIFA classification, compared to approximately 50% of those in inner-Melbourne. Extreme
advantage and disadvantage were, however, more common in inner-Melbourne than in growth
areas with a quarter of respondents in inner-Melbourne living in localities classified as ‘most
disadvantaged’ as compared with 9% in growth areas. Correspondingly, almost one-third of innerMelbourne respondents lived in localities classified as least disadvantaged, in contrast with 6% in the
growth area.
Liquor outlet density was much greater in inner-urban Melbourne, with around three times per
capita as many packaged liquor outlets, 17 times as many pubs (selling both on and off premises
liquor) and 25 times as many bars and licensed restaurants (only selling on-premises alcohol). These
disparities were even larger when examined using a spatial (i.e. per square kilometre) rather than a
population-based denominator.
7
Table 1: Socio-demographic characteristics by urban area
Growth area
N
433
Age
19.9 (19.6-20.1)
Female
47.0%
Main language spoken at home (English)
83.9%
Living situation
Living with parents
78.4%
Living with partner/children
12.1%
Living with housemates or alone
7.5%
Other
16.1%
Disposable income
Less than $40/week
18.7%
$40-$79/week
21.1%
Over $80 per/week
60.2%
SEIFA
1st Quartile (Most disadvantaged)
9.0%
2nd Quartile
62.7%
3rd Quartile
22.3%
4th Quartile (Least disadvantaged)
6.0%
Liquor outlet density*
Packaged liquor outlets (per 10,000
population)
2.1
Pubs (per 10,000 population)
0.9
On premise- restaurants and bars (per
10,000 population)
3.0
Inner-Melbourne
206
20.8 (20.4-21.1)
45.9%
77.3%
p-value†
<0.001¥
0.802
0.055
<0.001
46.9%
11.8%
38.7%
22.7%
0.061
12.2%
18.6%
69.3%
<0.001
25.0%
25.7%
17.2%
32.1%
6.8
15.6
70.5
†Design-based test statistics are used; chi-square test reported unless specified.
¥ T-test used
*Liquor outlet data for 2011 provided by the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation
Table 2 examines the differences in young people’s attitudes towards drinking and drunkenness in
inner and growth areas, showing both unadjusted (bivariate) and adjusted results. Attitudes towards
drinking any amount of alcohol were measured in VYADS by asking respondents to agree or disagree
with three statements concerning whether it is wrong for young people to drink regularly, anything
good can be said about drinking and having a drink is one of the pleasures of life. Unadjusted
responses indicate that young people in inner-Melbourne hold significantly more liberal views about
alcohol consumption than their growth area peers. Only in relation to the question ‘To what extent
to you think it is wrong for someone your age to drink regularly?’ did the results become non-
8
significant when findings were adjusted for age, gender and SEIFA. In contrast, young people’s
attitudes to drunkenness (measured by responses to statements about being drunk themselves or
seeing other people drunk) were strikingly similar across the two settings under study.
Table 2: attitudes to alcohol use by urban area (percentage reported)
Unadjusted (bivariate)
Growth
Innerp- Growth
Area Melbourne value†
Area
To what extent to you
think it is wrong for
someone your age to drink
regularly?
0.012
Very wrong
4.6
2.9
5.0
Wrong
45.3
33.7
43.9
Not wrong at all
50.0
63.3
52.1
There is nothing good to
be said about drinking
Agree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Disagree
Having a drink is one of
the pleasures of life
Agree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Disagree
Getting drunk is an
innocent way of having fun
Agree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Disagree
A drunk person is a
disgusting sight
Agree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Disagree
Adjusted
InnerMelbourne
0.162
2.6
38.1
59.3
0.018
0.013
31.0
20.8
30.8
20.8
4.7
64.4
2.6
76.5
5.4
63.8
2.1
77.1
0.027
0.016
66.0
75.6
65.3
76.4
2.7
31.2
3.7
20.6
2.6
32.1
4.1
19.5
0.896
0.658
29.3
31.1
28.5
32.9
5.2
65.5
4.9
64.0
5.3
66.2
4.7
62.5
0.311
0.078
68.1
63.5
70.1
59.2
3.8
28.1
6.6
29.9
4.2
25.8
5.6
35.1
†Design-based marginal test statistics are used; Wald - test reported.
9
pvalue†
Table 3 describes the drinking behaviours for the two subpopulations, showing little difference
between the cohorts. In total, 93.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 90.9-94.9) had ever tried alcohol.
While the differences between the two subpopulations for those legally able to purchase alcohol (18
years and over) was minimal, there was a 12 percentage point difference between the 16-17 year
olds in inner-Melbourne and those in the growth area who had ever tried alcohol; this difference
was not significant (X2(1)=95.8; p=0.084). A similar pattern can be observed with recent alcohol use,
where 16-17 year olds in inner-Melbourne were more likely to have used alcohol during the past 12
months than those in growth areas (X2(1)=174.1; p=0.020).
The average volume of alcohol consumed by young people in the growth area was almost 200 grams
less than in inner-Melbourne (equivalent to about half a litre of spirits per annum), although this
difference was not statistically significant. The percentages of growth area and inner-Melbourne
youth who indicated drinking at least five or at least 20 standard drinks on one or more occasions
were similar. The percentage who drank with the intention of getting drunk ‘most times’ or ‘every
time’ also did not differ substantially (p=0.767). Roughly 15% of those in growth areas drank to get
drunk at least ‘most times’, compared to 17% of inner-Melbourne youth.
10
Table 3: Drinking behaviours by urban area (percentage reported)
Unadjusted (bivariate)
Growth
InnerpGrowth
area Melbourne value†
area
Ever tried alcohol
92.5
94.5 0.369
93.0
16-17
81.6
93.9
81.1
18-21
94.7
95.4
95.0
22-24
96.7
93.9
96.2
Alcohol use in last
12 months
85.4
86.4 0.748
85.5
16-17
75.4
93.9
75.5
18-21
87.6
89.8
88.2
22-24
89.0
81.7
86.4
Mean total volume
consumed per year
(pure g/alcohol)
Pattern of use
(once or more in
past 12 months)
5+ drinks
20+ drinks
Adjusted
InnerMelbourne
93.4
94.7
94.8
94.8
86.2
94.1
88.6
85.6
pvalue†
0.803
0.804
561
(471-651)
741
(564-918)
0.059
576
(479-672)
710
(544-875)
0.162
71.1
37.8
76.2
38.5
0.204
0.882
71.2
37.8
76.0
38.5
0.265
0.885
†Design-based marginal test statistics are used; Wald - test reported.
Interesting distinctions emerged when participants were asked to indicate what types of alcohol
they usually drank during the last year, as shown in Table 4. Young people in inner-Melbourne were
far more likely to consume beer of every strength type than those in growth areas. Almost 70% of
youth in inner-Melbourne usually drank beer compared to only 49.6% of those in the growth areas
(χ2(1)=187.4; p<0.001). The difference was even greater with wine; with double the percentage of
inner-Melbourne youth drinking wine in the last year when compared with those in growth areas.
Seventy percent of growth area youth indicated that premixed drinks were their usual beverages. By
comparison only 48.3% of youth in the inner-Melbourne area usually drank premixed drinks.
11
Table 4: Beverage choice by urban area (percentage reported)
Unadjusted (bivariate)
Growth
Innerparea Melbourne value†
Type of alcohol
consumed
Regular-strength beer
43.5
63.6 <0.001
(greater than 4%
alc/vol)
Mid-strength beer (3%
to
24.3
33.4
0.035
3.9% alc/vol)
Low-alcohol beer (1%
to
17.5
22.2
0.222
2.9% alc/vol)
Bottled wine
29.7
61.6 <0.001
Bottled spirits
62.1
66.8
0.301
Premixed spirit
(can/bottle)
70.4
48.3 <0.001
Other (eg. cask wine,
25.3
42.3 <0.001
homebrew, cider)
Adjusted
Growth
Innerarea Melbourne
pvalue†
43.2
64.3
<0.001
24.4
33.2
0.058
17.5
22.2
0.272
32.1
63.2
56.5
64.7
<0.001
0.769
70.4
26.3
48.3
40.0
<0.001
0.006
†Design-based marginal test statistics are used; Wald - test reported.
Differences in how respondents under the legal age for purchasing alcohol in Victoria (18 years)
obtained alcohol are shown in Table 5. Underage young people in inner-Melbourne were
significantly more likely to have self-purchased alcohol. Additionally, over 20% of under-aged
drinkers in inner-Melbourne had drunk alcohol in a licensed venue in the past 12 months, compared
to 6% of those from growth areas. Also shown in Table 5 is that for all respondents who drank
alcohol during the previous 12 months the ‘usual location’ for drinking differed between the two
sub-populations. While similar percentages of youth from both usually drank ‘at a friend’s home’,
greater proportions of young people from growth areas indicated their ‘usual location’ for drinking
to be ‘private parties’. Correspondingly, the percentages of those in inner-Melbourne indicating
drinking ‘at own home’ or ‘in a licensed venue’ (e.g., pub or club or restaurant) was greater than in
growth areas. Almost three-quarters of young people from inner-Melbourne had consumed alcohol
at a licensed venue in the previous 12 months; for those in the growth area this proportion was
12
significantly smaller, just over half. This may be partly explained by the far greater representation of
‘underage’ youth drinking in licensed venues in inner-Melbourne. On average, those from innerMelbourne drank at a licensed venue 46 days in the past year (95% CI 37-55 days), while those in
growth areas drank at such a venue on only 25 days (95% CI 21-30 days; t=-4.86, p<0.001). For those
who were underage, and also for 22-24 year olds in adjusted results) a significant difference was also
observed. On average, inner-Melbourne underage drinkers drank at a licensed venues on 10 days
(95% CI 4-17 days) compared to 4 days (95% CI 2-6 days; t=-2.30; p=0.022) for the growth area
youth.
Table 5: Alcohol access and drinking location by urban area (percentage reported)
Unadjusted (bivariate)
Growth
Innerparea Melbourne
value†
Obtain alcohol (for those
under 18 years)
Friends
Parents
Family (siblings, other)
Bought by self
Other (approached
unknown person, stole)
Location of alcohol use (last
12 months)
At own home
At friends home
Private parties
Raves/dance
parties/concerts
Licensed premises (total)
16-17 years
18-21 years
22-24 years
Other
59.7
43.0
1.2
9.6
0.7
71.0
32.4
1.0
25.8
1.4
0.256
0.294
38.7
41.6
38.2
4.9
57.2
6.1
69.5
70.2
3.2
13
Adjusted
Growth
Innerarea Melbourne
pvalue†
73.4
32.4
1.3
34.0
1.4
0.187
0.356
0.793
0.025
0.331
58.9
43.0
1.1
8.7
0.6
48.6
40.4
27.5
3.9
0.038
0.797
0.019
0.615
40.1
40.8
38.2
5.3
45.9
42.0
27.5
3.4
0.270
0.814
0.034
0.322
74.8
22.6
79.3
84.8
5.6
<0.001
0.013
0.078
0.057
0.149
59.1
5.7
71.3
68.4
3.1
71.8
27.4
76.2
86.3
5.8
0.003
0.014
0.431
0.013
0.097
0.757
0.010
0.361
Discussion
This study shows how alcohol use patterns and attitudes vary across different parts of a large city.
While no statistically significant differences emerged in relation to the volumes of alcohol
consumed, differences emerged in relation to attitudes towards drinking alcohol, alcohol product
choice, underage drinking and usual drinking venues. These findings were only slightly altered by
adjusting for age, sex and socio-economic status, indicating that differences which emerged relate to
characteristics of inner-urban and growth area suburbs such as local drinking cultures, alcohol outlet
density and the range of leisure activities available for young adults in these settings.
Australian local governments are subject to increasing expectations that they respond to alcoholrelated harm (Streker, 2012). This study has a range of implications for alcohol policy development in
different urban settings. Here we examine the implications for responses to heavy episodic drinking
by young people, alcohol education, entertainment districts and alcohol-related amenity, outlet
density, regulation of alcohol sales and alcohol pricing.
Responding to heavy episodic drinking
In recent years commentators have identified increasingly homogenised drinking patterns in
countries where differentiated drinking styles were previously observed (Room, 2007, Leifman,
2001). In this study, young people’s alcohol consumption was relatively similar across inner- and
growth area Melbourne, with slightly (and non-significantly) less lifetime and past 12 month alcohol
use, average volume of alcohol consumption and regularity of drinking five or more or 20 or more
standard drinks on any one occasion by young people in growth areas. Further, these drinking
behaviours were similar to or marginally lower than those reported by young people in Victoria
overall (Social Research Centre, 2010). For example, around 86% of young people had consumed
alcohol within the prior year in our two populations of interest, compared with 87.3% in the general
youth population. Around 38% of each cohort had consumed 20 or more standard drinks at least
14
once during the previous year, compared with 42% reported in the general Victorian youth
population (Social Research Centre, 2010). Just under a third of respondents in each subpopulation
agreed that ‘getting drunk is an innocent way to have fun’. This is slightly lower than the state
average of 34% (Social Research Centre, 2010), but nonetheless constitutes a large contingent of
young people with a positive attitude towards deliberately drinking to intoxication. This indicates
that alcohol policy and intervention responses designed to reduce heavy episodic drinking are
relevant to both inner- and growth area settings. Measures to reduce alcohol availability through
limiting outlet density and restricting the hours during which alcohol may be sold are likely to be
part of an effective response to heavy episodic drinking (Babor et al., 2010).
Education
Urban geographers have claimed that inner-city areas are characterised not only by different
employment patterns, demographics and housing markets to those in other parts of Australian
cities, but also by more liberal cultural values (O'Connor and Rapson, 2003). Consistent with this,
VYADS respondents in inner -Melbourne reported more liberal attitudes to drinking alcohol but not
to drunkenness than their age peers in growth areas, with non-statistically significant differences in
responses to one of three measures of attitudes to drinking when adjusted for age, gender and
SEIFA. Thus the less liberal attitudes to alcohol detected among growth areas respondents can only
be partly explained by their younger average age than those in inner-Melbourne and are likely to
reflect cultural factors. There is some evidence to suggest that more liberal attitudes towards
alcohol consumption are associated with greater prevalence of alcohol-related harm (McBride et al.,
2004). This indicates that health education campaigns targeting young people in growth areas
should reinforce many young people’s more cautious attitudes to drinking alcohol. The tendency of
young people in growth areas to drink more frequently at private parties than inner-urban youth
indicates a particular need for education on planning safe parties in these locations. Various
resources are available to support this effort (see, for example, Victoria Police, 2012).
15
Entertainment districts and alcohol related amenity
While a great many recreational options are available in the inner-city, this is not the case in outer
suburbs. Many of the suburbs located outside the inner-suburban ring share problems relating to
lack of transport, opportunity and infrastructure (Buxton and Scheurer, 2007). Two separate
qualitative research studies found that young people living in the outer-Melbourne growth suburbs
of Roxburgh Park and Craigieburn (20 to 24 kilometres from the central business district (CBD)) and
Sunbury (34 kilometres from the CBD) reported a lack of appealing recreational activities, poor
access to public transport and a sense of isolation and boredom (Robson, 2009, Jackson and
McDonald, 2005). Young adults from the outer-suburbs must travel long distances to reach
entertainment precincts in the inner-city. Regular public transport services are essential to facilitate
a safe return home to outer-suburbs for people who have been drinking in the city and transport
must be available for some time after licensed venues close.
Data presented above show that growth area respondents who drank alcohol during the past 12
months were more likely than those in inner-Melbourne to report drinking at ‘private parties’, while
inner-Melbourne respondents were more likely to drink at licensed venues and indeed drank
significantly more frequently at these venues. A recent study of drinking among 15-16 year olds in
two regions of England found that the local provision of non-alcohol related leisure activities was
more important that financial resources available to individual participants in influencing how they
spent their time (Townshend, in press). This suggests that local governments in both inner- and
growth areas should ensure that a range recreation options that do not involve alcohol are available
for young people. With relatively few available recreational opportunities in growth areas there is a
strong potential for drinking at private parties to become a focal activity for young people.
Local governments in inner-urban and growth areas face very different alcohol-related safety and
amenity issues. Inner- Melbourne entertainment precincts attract many visitors to the area and
alcohol purchased at these venues is consumed by people from a wide range of postcodes. Inner16
city areas require an approach to reducing harm such as assault and intoxication around venues
entailing collaboration with various bodies to ensure availability of a range of recreation options,
appropriate regulation and policing, restricting late night alcohol sales, adequate lighting, public
toilets and regular late night public transport (City of Sydney, 2011). Little is documented in
literature about issues related to amenity and safety around licensed venues in growth areas.
Outlet density planning
Alcohol availability is generally regulated at a state or territory level in Australia. However, recent
Victorian legislation gives local governments power to make determinations on applications for new
liquor licenses (Wilkinson, 2012). Differences in outlet density between the two areas under study
here are substantial, with around three times as many packaged liquor outlets and 25 times as many
licensed restaurants and bars per capita in the inner-Melbourne area. These disparities were largest
in relation to bars and restaurants where alcohol is only available on-premises, and least extreme for
availability of packaged liquor outlets. Nonetheless these figures are likely to hide substantial
variation between outlet density across different inner and growth area LGAs and do not show the
rate at which license availability is increasing in each area. For example, the City of Casey, which
includes designated growth area suburbs included in the analysis here saw an 89% increase in active
liquor licenses between 2000 to 2009, against a 42% increase in population. Over the same time
period the City of Melbourne saw an increase in active liquor licenses by 67% while their population
increased at a greater rate than Casey’s (Victorian Auditor-General, 2012).
Increasing density of licensed venues in Victoria over past decades has been linked with greater
prevalence of alcohol related harms (Livingston et al., 2007, Livingston et al., 2008, Kavanagh et al.,
2011). Further, licensing venues to trade late at night appears to be associated with higher assault
rates (Kypri et al., 2010). As noted above, measures to reduce alcohol availability are critical in
minimising adverse consequences of drinking for both inner-urban and growth areas.
17
In view of inner-Melbourne’s high profile entertainment precincts it would be inappropriate for per
capita distribution of licenses ever to be equal across the urban settings under study here. Much of
the alcohol sold in inner-Melbourne outlets is purchased by people visiting inner-city areas(Lindsay,
2006). Indeed the greater relative availability of bottle shops compared with venues selling onpremises alcohol in growth areas is concerning, as packaged liquor outlets appear to be more
strongly associated with alcohol-related harm than other venue types (Livingston, 2011).
In considering liquor licensing applications in growth areas, as elsewhere, it is critical to ensure
venues are located in only in areas where other activities are also available so that alcohol does not
become more central to social engagement than it already is. Preference should be given to onpremises licenses where, if responsible alcohol service practices are adhered to, drinking to
intoxication is arguably less likely (Wells et al., 2009). New liquor licenses should be granted only
where there is clear evidence that alcohol is not already locally available and where disruption or
inconvenience to the community will be minimal.
Regulation of alcohol sales
Regulation to ensure that alcohol is not sold to minors or to people who are intoxicated is a state
responsibility in Victoria, however some local governments employ enforcement officers to enhance
this effort (Williams, 2012). Underage drinkers in inner-Melbourne (16-17 year old) in the VYADS
were more likely to have tried alcohol and to have used alcohol during the past year. This may
reflect their greater accessibility to alcohol due to the high outlet density in inner-urban areas, in
combination with more liberal attitudes to alcohol use. Respondents in this age cohort in innerMelbourne were also significantly more likely to have purchased alcohol themselves than those in
growth areas. They were also more likely to have accessed alcohol from parents and less likely to
have acquired it from friends, although these differences were not significant. Underage innerMelbourne respondents who had drunk alcohol within the previous year were also significantly
more likely than their underage growth area counterparts to have drunk at a licensed premise,
18
which may again reflect their greater access to these venues. Enforcement of provisions prohibiting
alcohol sales to minors and underage drinking in licensed venues should be a particular focus in
inner-Melbourne (Wilkinson and MacLean, 2013).
Alcohol pricing
Significant differences emerged in relation to alcohol product choice across the two subpopulations
under study and these were only marginally affected by adjusting for age, gender and SEIFA,
suggesting that local alcohol cultures may play a part here. Regular-strength beer and bottled wine
were more commonly identified as usually drunk by survey respondents in inner-Melbourne and
canned or bottled pre-mixed spirits were preferred in growth areas. Sweet pre-mixed drinks (also
known as ‘alcopops’) have gained market share with young drinkers (Jones and Barrie, 2011, Brain et
al., 2000). A recent Australian study found that premixed drinks ranged from 4.8% to 7.5% alcohol by
volume and that these products are frequently subject to substantial price discounting for multipack
purchases, making the cost per standard drink as low as $1.22 (Jones and Barrie, 2011). Room (2007)
concludes from an analysis of European youth alcohol consumption data that cultural groups where
beer is the primary alcoholic product consumed evidence more drunkenness, but that cultures
where spirits are primarily drunk experience more harm per unit of alcohol. There is, however,
currently no evidence that premixed drinks are responsible for a greater prevalence of harms among
young people than other alcoholic products such as beer or unmixed wine (Metzner and Kraus,
2008). Nonetheless, the variation in alcohol content within both beer and pre-mixed spirits and the
propensity for bottle shops to offer these products at heavily discounted prices suggests that premixed drinks marketing and consumption and should be carefully monitored everywhere.
Encouraging governments to mandate a minimum floor price per unit of alcohol, preferably achieved
through taxation so any differential goes to government rather than alcohol producers, would be a
logical step towards reducing young people’s intoxication in both inner-urban and growth areas
(Babor et al., 2010).
19
Limitations and conclusion
Our study’s limitations relate to the contestable nature of the definitions of ‘inner’ and ‘growth area’
regions of Melbourne. Some limitations relate to the VYADS, such as the relatively low numbers of
participants reporting some measures. Some young people cannot be reached by landline and thus
would have been excluded from the VYADS study sample. VYADS data are collected by residential
location so whether the alcohol respondents identify having drunk was consumed within the areas
where they lived or in other locations cannot be determined. Although not the focus of the current
paper, it would be interesting to identify the contribution of outlet density to differences in drinking
patterns and attitudes reported here. Future analyses could consider whether alcohol- associated
harms differ across urban areas using ambulance attendance data or police statistics.
Randolph (2004) has argued for research in local communities to enhance our understandings of
how global forces play out in neighbourhoods. Statistical data considered here do not allow us to
develop detailed understandings of how global alcohol cultures and marketing impact on local
communities of young people. For example, we know that sizeable proportions of young people in
inner- and growth area Melbourne, along with many others internationally, regard getting drunk as a
good way to have fun and frequently drink to intoxication (Järvinen and Room, 2007, Livingston,
2008b). But how, for example, is getting drunk different, more difficult, or perhaps less safe, when
you live in an area where there is little public transport to enable people to travel to and from
drinking places? Locally based qualitative studies considering questions such as these would further
support policy and planning across diverse urban settings. Nonetheless, this study provides a start
towards understanding spatial discrepancies in drinking patterns and attitudes to alcohol for urban
young people.
Acknowledgements
20
This research was funded by an Australian Research Council grant (LP 100100017). We acknowledge
financial contributions from VicHealth and the Victorian Department of Health, and in-kind
contributions from the National Drug Research Institute, Hume City Council, Yarra City Council and
the Municipal Association of Victoria. We also thank the project steering committee: Robin Room,
David Moore, Brian Vandenberg, Karen Goltz, Elizabeth Blades-Hamilton, Ros Young and Claire
Dunn.
References
ADELL, G. 1999. Theories and models of the peri-urban interface: a changing conceptual landscape.
London: University College London.
BABOR, T., CAETANO, R., CASSWELL, S., EDWARDS, G., GIESBRECHT, N., GRAHAM, K., GRUBE, J., HILL,
L., HOLDER, H., HOMEL, R., LIVINGSTON, M., ÖSTERBERG, E., REHM, J., ROOM, R. &
ROSSOW, I. 2010. Alcohol: No ordinary commodity - Research and public policy. 2nd ed,
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BAUM, C. F. 2006. An introduction to modern econometrics using Stata, College Station, Texas, Stata
Press.
BAUM, S. & GLEESON, B. 2010. Space and Place: Social Exclusion in Australia's Suburban Heartlands.
Urban Policy & Research, 28, 135-159.
BRAIN, K., PARKER, H. & CARNWATH, T. 2000. Drinking with design: young drinkers as psychoactive
consumers. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 7, 5–20.
BUXTON, M. & SCHEURER, J. 2007. Density and urban development in Melbourne. Urban Policy and
Research, 25, 91-111.
CITY OF SYDNEY 2011. Discussion Paper: OPEN Sydney. Future directions for Sydney at night. Sydney:
City of Sydney.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, S. G. O. V. 2007. Local Government Planning for Health and Wellbeing
[Online]. Department of Health, State Government of Victoria,. Available:
http://www.health.vic.gov.au/localgov/mphp/health_act.htm [Accessed 29 October 2012].
FORSTER, C. 2006. The challenge of change: Australian cities and urban planning in the new
millennium. Geographical Research, 44, 173-182.
GROWTH AREAS AUTHORITY. 2012. Growth areas [Online]. Melbourne: Growth Areas Authority.
Available: http://www.gaa.vic.gov.au/index/ [Accessed].
INNER MELBOURNE ACTION PLAN 2010. Inner Melbourne Action Plan; Making Melbourne more
livable. Annual Report 2009-2010. City of Melbourne, City of Stonnington, City of Port Phillip
& City of Yarra
JACKSON, J. T. & MCDONALD, C. 2005. "They have good intentions". Young people's experiences of
living in Melbourne's peri-urban areas. Urban Policy & Research, 23, 477-495.
JÄRVINEN, M. & ROOM, R. (eds.) 2007. Youth Drinking Cultures: European Experiences, Aldershot:
Ashgate.
JONES, S. C. & BARRIE, L. 2011. RTDs in Australia: Expensive designer drinks or cheap rocket fuel?
Drug & Alcohol Review, 30, 4-11.
KAVANAGH, A., KELLY, M., KRNJACKI, L., THORNTON, L., JOLLEY, D., SUBRAMANIAN, S., TURRELL, G.
& BENTLEY, R. 2011. Access to alcohol outlets and harmful alcohol consumption: a multilevel study in Melbourne, Australia. Addiction, 106, 1772-9.
21
KYPRI, K., JONES, C., MCELDUFF, P. & BARKER, D. 2010. Effects of restricting pub closing times on
night-time assaults in an Australian city. Addiction, 106, 303-310.
LEIFMAN, H. 2001. Homogenization in alcohol consumption in the European Union. Nordic Studies
on Alcohol and Drugs, 18 (English supplement), 15-30.
LINDSAY, J. 2006. A big night out in Melbourne: drinking as an enactment of class and gender.
Contemporary Drug Problems, 33, 29-61.
LIVINGSTON, M. 2008a. Alcohol outlet density and assault: a spatial analysis. Addiction, 103, 619628.
LIVINGSTON, M. 2008b. Recent trends in risky alcohol consumption and related harm among young
people in Victoria, Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 32, 266271.
LIVINGSTON, M. 2011. Alcohol outlet density and harm: Comparing the impacts on violence and
chronic harms. Drug and Alcohol Review, 30, 515-523.
LIVINGSTON, M., CHIKRITZIS, T. & ROOM, R. 2007. Changing the density of alcohol outlets to reduce
alcohol-associated problems. Drug and Alcohol Review, 26, 557-566.
LIVINGSTON, M., LASLETT, A.-M. & DIETZE, P. 2008. Individual and community correlates of young
people's high-risk drinking in Victoria. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 98, 241-248.
MCBRIDE, N., FARRINGDON, F., MIDFORD, R., MEULENERS, L. & PHILLIPS, M. 2004. Harm
minimization in school drug education: final results of the School Health and Alcohol Harm
Reduction Project (SHAHRP). Addiction, 99, 278-291.
MEASHAM, F. 2004. The decline of ecstacy, the rise of 'binge' drinking and the persistence of
pleasure. Probation Journal, 51, 309-326.
MEASHAM, F. & BRAIN, K. 2005. 'Binge' drinking, British alcohol policy and the new culture of
intoxication. Crime Media Culture, 1, 262-283.
METZNER, C. & KRAUS, L. 2008. The impact of alcopops on adolescent drinking: a literature review.
Alcohol and Alcoholism, 43, 230-239.
MILLER, P. G., COOMBER, K., STAIGER, P., ZINKIEWICZ, L. & TOUMBOUROU, J. W. 2010. Review of
rural and regional alcohol research in Australia. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 18, 110117.
NATIONAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT DRUG AND ALCOHOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2008. Local
Government Recommendations on Liquor Licensing. Submission to the Ministerial Council
on Drug Strategy for consideration at the National Alcohol Forum. Brisbane: National Local
Government Drug and Alcohol Advisory Committee.
NLT CONSULTING 2006. Staying connected: solutions for addressing service gaps for young people
living at the interface Melbourne: NLT Consulting for Interface Councils in Metropolitan
Melbourne
O'CONNOR, K. & RAPSON, V. 2003. Employment in city and suburban Melbourne: the changing
relationship. People and Place, 11, 41-52.
PARKER, H. 2007. Consumption beyond control: the centrality of heavy social drinking in the
lifestyles of English youth. In: JÄRVINEN, M. & ROOM, R. (eds.) Youth Drinking Cultures:
European Experiences. Ashgate: Aldershot.
RANDOLPH, B. 2004. The Changing Australian City: New Patterns, New Policies and New Research
Needs. Urban Policy & Research, 22, 481-493.
RANDOLPH, B. & HOLLOWAY, D. 2005. Social disadvantage, tenure and location: an analysis of
Sydney and Melbourne. Urban Policy and Research, 23, 173-201.
ROBSON, B. 2009. Building Lives, Buildling Community in Craigieburn and Roxburgh Park, Melbourne,
The McCaughey Centre: VicHealth Centre for the Promotion of Mental Health & Community
Wellbeing, The University of Melbourne.
ROCHE, A., M,, BYWOOD, P., BORLAGDAN, J., LUNNAY, B., FREEMAN, T., LAWTON, L., TOVELL, A. &
NICHOLAS, R. 2008. Young People and Alcohol: The Role of Cultural Influences, Adelaide,
National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction.
22
ROOM, R. 2007. Understanding cultural differences in young people's drinking. In: JÄRVINEN, M. &
ROOM, R. (eds.) Youth Drinking Cultures: European Experiences. Ashgate: Aldershot.
SOCIAL RESEARCH CENTRE 2010. 2009 Victorian Youth Alcohol and Drug Survey Final Report.
Melbourne: Victorian Drug and Alcohol Prevention Council.
STATACORP 2010. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, Texas: StataCorp LP.
STREKER, P. 2012. Under the influence: What local governments can do to reduce drug and alcohol
related harms in their communities. Prevention Research Quarterly, 19, 1-16.
TOWNSHEND, T. G. in press. Youth, Alcohol and Place-Based Leisure Behaviours: a study of two
locations in England. Social Science and Medicine.
VICTORIA POLICE. 2012. Partysafe Program. Available:
http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?a=internetBridgingPage&Media_ID=12175
[Accessed 12 November 2012].
VICTORIAN AUDITOR-GENERAL 2012. Effectiveness of Justice Strategies in Preventing and Reducing
Alcohol-Related Harm. Melbourne: Victorian Auditor-General's Office.
WELLS, S., GRAHAM, K. & PURCELL, J. 2009. Policy implications of the widespread practice of ‘predrinking’ or ‘pre-gaming’ before going to public drinking establishments—are current
prevention strategies backfiring? Addiction, 104, 4-9.
WILKINSON, C. 2012. Local government and cumulative impact: a tool to limit the concentration of
liquor licences? Druginfo, 10, 7-8.
WILKINSON, C. & MACLEAN, S. 2013. Enforcement of Liquor License provisions: the introduction of
civilian license inspectors in Victoria. Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy, 20, 15-21.
WILLIAMS, M. 2012. Local government and the management of alcohol and other drugs. Druginfo,
10, 8-9.
23